« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
with all proper and reasonable speed and diligence, or deliver the same to the said plaintiffs, in the city of New York aforesaid, safely and securely, with reasonable and proper diligence and dispatch; on the contrary, the said plaintiffs aver, that the said defendants retained and kept the said cattle in their said cars at the city of Albany aforesaid for several hours after four o'clock in the afternoon of the said 29th day of March, 1854, and did not send or forward them until and by a train of cars leaving at or after eight o'clock in the evening of that day; and the said defendants wrongfully and negligently stopped, delayed and detained the said train of cars last mentioned, and the said plaintiffs’ cattle aboard thereof, several hours on the said railroad of the said defendants during the night after their departure from Albany as aforesaid, and did not deliver the said cattle at the city of New-York until twelve hours, or thereabouts, after the time they might, could and should have been delivered, if the said defendants had carried them by the train and in the manner they had undertaken to do as aforesaid ; and the said defendants did not use proper care or diligence in carrying and transporting the said cattle, whereby and by reason of the delay and detention aforesaid, the said cattle were badly bruised, injured and damaged on the said road of the said defendants, and became sick, faint and exhausted, and greatly diminished in value; and by reason of the delay and detention aforesaid, the said cattle were not delivered in New-York in season for the then next market day for the sale of cattle in New-York aforesaid, as they otherwise would have been if the said defendants had carried the same by the said train, and with reasonable speed and diligence, according to their said undertaking and agreement.
And the plaintiffs further aver, that by reason of the failure and neglect of the said defendants to carry the said cattle according to their aforesaid undertaking and agreement, and by reason of their delay and detention on the road of the said defendants, and the want of care and diligence on the part of the said defendants in carrying the said cattle, they, the said plaintiffs, have sustained great loss and damage by means of the said cattle being badly bruised and injured, sick and exhausted, and have been deprived of great gains and profits which they would have made and derived by and from the said sale of the said cattle at the then next market day, and were by reason thereof compelled to keep the said cattle for several days, to wit, four days, after their arrival in the city of NewYork, and until the next market day, before selling and disposing of them, whereby they, the said plaintiffs, were put to and necessarily incurred great cost and expense in and about the keeping and feeding the said cattle in the city of New-York aforesaid.
Wherefore the said plaintiffs say, that they are injured and have sustained damages, by reason of the premises aforesaid, to the amount of $828, and they demand judgment for that sum, with the costs of this action.
CLARK & REED,
Another form, uniting several causes of action against the
same company, for similar damages, by reason of its nego lect as a common carrier.
SUPREME COURT — ONTARIO COUNTY.
agt. The Hudson River Railroad Company.
Phineas Kent, plaintiff in this action, complaining of the Hudson River Railroad Company, defendants therein, respectfully shows the court:
First. That the said defendants were, on the 1st day of January, 1853, and ever since have been, and still are, a corporation, by and under the laws of this state, engaged in the business of running railroad cars, and of transporting passengers, baggage, cattle and other live stock, and freight, by railroad, between Albany and the city of NewYork, as common carriers for hire.
That in the month of March, 1853, and on Monday, the plaintiff
, at Albany aforesaid (the northern terminus of defendants' railroad), by one Eli 0. Taylor, his agent, delivered to the defendants eighty fat sheep, which the defendants then and there accepted and received of and from the plaintiff, and which were worth $560, to be safely and securely carried and conveyed over the route of their said road, by the defendants, from Albany to NewYork city, and then and there, with reasonable diligence and speed, and on the morning of Tuesday, the next day, to be safely and securely delivered to the plaintiff, or his agent, Eli 0. Taylor, by the said defendants, for a reasonable reward paid them by the plaintiff.
Yet the defendants, wrongfully and negligently acting in the premises, and contriving and intending to defraud and injure the plaintiff, did not on the next morning deliver said sheep to the plaintiff, or to any one for him, at NewYork city, but neglected and refused so to do, and did not, with reasonable diligence and speed, carry and convey said sheep from Albany aforesaid to New-York aforesaid; but on the contrary, being such carriers as aforesaid, the said defendants so carelessly and negligently behaved and conducted themselves in the premises, that, by and through their negligence, default and carelessness, the said sheep were delayed for a long time on their said road, in their cars, and forty-eight hours beyond the usual and ordinary time of passage over the said road, by means whereof the plaintiff was subjected to great loss and expense, in consequence of said sheep wasting away for want of food and drink, and becoming sick and refusing to eat by reason of being so long confined in said cars, and in consequence of being compelled to keep them for a long time after their arrival at New-York city, to recruit said sheep and restore them to their former marketable condition, and in consequence of the depreciation of the market value of said sheep between the time they should have arrived and that of their arrival at New-York, and in consequence of the expense and loss of time to which plaintiff was subjected, amounting in all to the sum of $125.2
Second. For a further cause of action, the plaintiff shows the court that, on the 16th day of February, 1854, at New
This common but utterly useless fiction of the old system of pleading is utterly inapplicable to the new, and should never, in cases like these, be used. (Pleadings, 290.) It is difficult to see how a plaintiff can conscientiously verify a complaint containing such an averment.
As to the necessity of each statement setting out a complete cause of action, in itself, see note, ante, p. 438.
York city, he, by said agent, delivered to the defendants, and the defendants, as such carriers as aforesaid, accepted and received of him, then and there, one hundred and eighty-two sheep pelts, of the value of $500, to be safely and securely carried by defendants, in their cars, over their said road, and to be delivered to the plaintiff or his agent, at Albany aforesaid, in a good condition and in good order, with due and reasonable diligence and speed, for a certain reward to be paid by the plaintiff therefor.
That, with intent to injure and defraud the plaintif, the defendants wholly refused and neglected to carry said pelts, and deliver them to the plaintiff or any one for him, as aforesaid, but kept and detained them in their cars and on their road for a long time, until said pelts became rotten and worthless, and so wrongfully and negligently behaved and conducted themselves in the premises, that through their carlessness and default the said pelts were entirely spoiled and of no value, to the plaintiff's damage of $500.
Third. For a further cause of action the plaintiff shows, that on the 17th day of February, 1854, at New-York city, he, by one Eli 0. Taylor, his agent, delivered to the defendants, and the defendants, as common carriers aforesaid, then and there accepted and received of him, seventy-one sheep pelts, of the value of $200, to be safely and securely carried by the defendants in their cars, over their said road, from New-York to Albany aforesaid, and there to be delivered to the plaintiff or his agent, in good order and condition, with all due and reasonable diligence and speed, for a certain reward to be paid by plaintiff'; that the defendants have wholly neglected and failed to perform their said promise and agreement, and wrongfully and
"See note on p. 524.